Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 3/24/16 10:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> 1) It's a great feature many users dream about.

Doesn't matter if it starts eating their data...

> 2) Patch is not very big.
> 3) Patch doesn't introduce significant infrastructural changes. It just
> change some well-isolated placed.

It doesn't really matter how big the patch is, it's a question of "What
did the patch fail to consider?". With something as complicated as the
btree code, there's ample opportunities for missing things. (And FWIW,
I'd argue that a 51kB patch is certainly not small, and a patch that is
doing things in critical sections isn't terribly isolated).

I do think this will be a great addition, but it's just too late to be
adding this to 9.6.

(BTW, I'm getting bounces from a(dot)lebedev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, as well as
postmaster(at)(dot) I emailed info(at)postgrespro(dot)ru about this but never heard back.)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com